green
Positive treatment
2.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc.
See L & R Realty v. Connecticut National Bank, 53 Conn. App. 524, 537-38 , 732 A.2d 181 (concluding that subrogation agreement was unenforceable because parties had not agreed on essential terms), cert. denied, 250 Conn. 901 , 734 A.2d 984 (1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Zewinski v. Volpe, No. Cv-98-0488391 S (Jun. 4, 2001)
See LR Realty v. Connecticut National Bank , 53 Conn. App. 524 , 541 , 732 A.2d 181 , cert. denied, 250 Conn. 901 , 734 A.2d 984 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fleet Services v. Asa Real Estate Serv., No. Cv 99-0156591s (Aug. 14, 2000)
See Bodner v. United States Automobile Assn. , 222 Conn. 480 , 492 , 610 A.2d 1212 (1992)." L R Realty v. Connecticut National Bank , 53 Conn. App. 524 , 551 , 731 A.2d 18 , cert. denied, 250 Conn. 901 , 734 A.2d 984 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
First Union National Bank v. Moore, No. Cv 99-0424489 (May 31, 2000)
Although a party may move that a case be stricken from the jury docket; see LR Realty v. Connecticut National Bank , 246 Conn. 1 , 17 , 715 A.2d 748 (1998), aff'd after remand, 53 Conn. App. 524 , 732 A.2d 181 (1999), cert. denied, 250 Conn. 901 , 734 A.2d 984 (1999) (holding that the trial court properly granted the defendant's motion to strike the action from the jury docket); the appropriate procedural vehicle for challenging a claim for jury trial is by objection.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wasko v. Farley
We have made it clear that we will not permit parties to anticipate a favorable decision, reserving a right to impeach it or set it aside if it happens to be against them, for a cause which was well known to them before or during the trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fiddelman v. Redmon, 31 Conn. App. 201, 213 , 623 A.2d 1064 , cert. denied, 226 Conn. 915 , 628 A.2d 986 (1993); see also L & R Realty v. Connecticut National Bank, 53 Conn. App. 524, 543 , 732 A.2d 181 , cert. denied, 250 Conn. 901 , 734 A.2d 984 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Embalmers' Supply Co. v. Giannitti
(2×)
We have made it clear that we will not permit parties to anticipate a favorable decision, reserving a right to impeach it or set it aside if it happens to be against them, for a cause which was well known to them before or during the trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fiddelman v. Redmon, 31 Conn. App. 201, 213 , 623 A.2d 1064 , cert. denied, 226 Conn. 915 , 628 A. 2d 986 (1993); see also L & R Realty v. Connecticut National Bank, 53 Conn. App. 524, 543 , 732 A.2d 181 , cert. denied, 250 Conn. 901 , 734 A.2d 984 (1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
FRANK PERRELLI
v.
FRANK PERRELLI
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 14, 1999.
Frank Perrelli, pro se, in support of the petition.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court is dismissed.